I totally hate this question, and generally start cursing uncontrollably when my students miss it. But I'm cursing at the question -- NOT my students -- because I think the question is ridiculous.
But as usual: the GMAT doesn't really care what any of us think. Let's solve this SOB.
Quote:
(A) Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.
"One reason is suggested by the finding..." Seriously, GMAT? Who the hell writes like that?!
But remember our two-step technique from
the SC Guide for Beginners: eliminate DEFINITE errors first, then look for meaning issues. I don't think that this muddy mess is DEFINITELY wrong. The semicolon correctly separates two independent clauses, and the comparison seems OK.
"One reason is suggested by the finding" is awkward and wordy, in my opinion. But that's just my opinion, and my opinion doesn't matter -- and no matter how awesome you are, neither does yours.
Keep (A), perhaps while holding your nose.
Quote:
(B) If used repeatedly in the same place，one reason that certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.
I'm comfortable getting rid of this one right away, because of that very first phrase: "if used repeatedly in one place" would need to be followed by "pesticides," not "one reason." (B) is out.
Quote:
(C) If used repeatedly in the same place，one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes are found in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than those that are free of such chemicals.
(C) has the same issue as (B), plus that comparison seems a little bit off: "much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes are found in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use
than those that are free of such chemicals." "Than those" would be better if it said "than
in those." (C) is out.
Quote:
(D) The finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals is suggestive of one reason, if used repeatedly in the same place, certain pesticides can become ineffective.
This isn't horrible, to be honest. Well... actually, yeah it is, but so is (A). I don't think there's a DEFINITE error in (D), but the placement of "if used repeatedly in one place" is definitely suspect: it sounds like "one reason" is the thing that is used repeatedly in the same place. You basically have to re-read the whole thing to figure out that it's the pesticides that are used in one place.
More generally, I think you could make a (not super-convincing) argument that the sentence is so horrendously wordy that you lose track of the subject. "The finding (blah blah blah....) is suggestive of one reason...." In general, please be really careful with this sort of thing. Frankly, (A) is pretty wordy, too; (D) is arguably wordy enough that the meaning become unclear. That's a judgment call, and
that's really not the way you want to think about SC, but it maybe adds a little bit of support to the idea that (A) is better than (D).
If you wanted to be conservative, you could keep (D), but I think that the modifier placement issue definitely tilts us toward (A). So (D) is out.
Quote:
(E) The finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in those that are free of such chemicals suggests one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place.
I actually really like the placement of "if used repeatedly in the same place" here. And I think we can make a similar (weak!) case about "wordiness" as in (D): there's a whole lot of stuff between the subject and the verb, and that makes things muddy. But again:
you shouldn't be terribly convinced by arguments about "wordiness", and we should try to find something that's more solid, relating to either grammar or meaning.
And here's the big issue: "the finding
of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes..." We're really not talking about the "finding of microbes" -- that would refer to the act of seeing the microbes themselves. The "reason" that we're interested in is the finding
that there are larger populations of microbes in some soils than in others.
And I know: that's subtle as all hell, but it definitely makes the meaning in (E) a little bit illogical. So we're left with a steaming pile of poo, otherwise known as answer choice (A).
In regards to choice E, isn't the meaning still logical for this choice? "Because much larger populations of microbes have been found in X than in Y, one reason is suggested as to why certain pesticides can become ineffective if used in the same place."
I think the meaning in choice E is changed slightly but isn't this changed meaning still logical? In addition, isn't the change in meaning super subtle and therefore doesn't really count as a complete change in meaning? In A it's saying that the finding is that there are more microbes in soil X than soil Y, while in E it's saying that more microbes have been found in soil X than Y. Aren't these two meaning virtually the same? In this case, why would option E be wrong when compared to A?
In addition, I've seen some discussion in the forum regarding the use of "finding" vs "finding that", however I don't think this is a definite error right? There've been plenty of cases on GMAT questions where "that" is correctly implied/omitted. Is my understanding of this "that" concept wrong?
close
22 Feb 2021, 18:49
)
